affirmative defense traffic court

for those who get railroaded into traffic court anway, this is from georgia. this is where u can bring the constitution in as a defense:
16-1-3.
As used in this title, the term:
(1) 'Affirmative defense' means, with respect to any affirmative defense authorized in this title, unless the state´s evidence raises the issue invoking the alleged defense, the defendant must present evidence thereon to raise the issue. The enumeration in this title of some affirmative defenses shall not be construed as excluding the existence of others.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by kgod999

for those who get railroaded into traffic court anway, this is from georgia. this is where u can bring the constitution in as a defense:
16-1-3.
As used in this title, the term:
(1) 'Affirmative defense' means, with respect to any affirmative defense authorized in this title, unless the state´s evidence raises the issue invoking the alleged defense, the defendant must present evidence thereon to raise the issue. The enumeration in this title of some affirmative defenses shall not be construed as excluding the existence of others.

Since the raising of any affirmative defense admits the doing of the act, but excuses it for mitigating or other circumstances; and requires the proof of the defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence presented by the defense. Why would you ever want to use it in a traffice case? What part of the Constitution of Georgia or of the United States would act as mitigation or other circumstance? Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

i posted this as a tool for those who DO GO TO COURT using THEIR LAWS. some people are not comfortable arguing sovereignty, travel rights etc.most people understand basic constitutional rights, thus, after accepting the judges oath of office and bond, the affirmative defense of right of liberty per the constitution can be used.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by kgod999

i posted this as a tool for those who DO GO TO COURT using THEIR LAWS. some people are not comfortable arguing sovereignty, travel rights etc.most people understand basic constitutional rights, thus, after accepting the judges oath of office and bond, the affirmative defense of right of liberty per the constitution can be used.

In my opinion you are wrong. Most people do not understand 'basic constitional rights'. Most do not know what they are, nor how to espouse them, especially in a courtroom situation.
I have been an pro se, legal researcher, counsel, defendant, plaintiff and beligerent claimant, at various times, for the last thirty-five years; and I have never heard of, nor reaed of the affirmative defense of 'right of liberty per the constitution'. Please supply the source you have used which uses that phrase and defines it. Please supply any case law which cites this phrase as an acceptable affimative defense.
Until you provide such, I suggest you do not offer statements that such is a 'legal tool' supported by unsubstantiated generalities. It is useless information.
Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

criminal statutes say that when u commit a crime you WILLFULLY DID IT OR INTENTIONALLY DID IT. so, lets say you use a right to travel defense per the constitution or whatever case law you prefer it that regards. thats your affirmative defense. that you didnt INTENTIONALLY commit the crime. this isnt hard. the only thing i agree with you on is most people dont take the time to read the constitution,so, you are correct, most people dont understand it. but, i feel they would understand it over some of the freedom movement material.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by kgod999

criminal statutes say that when u commit a crime you WILLFULLY DID IT OR INTENTIONALLY DID IT. so, lets say you use a right to travel defense per the constitution or whatever case law you prefer it that regards. thats your affirmative defense. that you didnt INTENTIONALLY commit the crime. this isnt hard. the only thing i agree with you on is most people dont take the time to read the constitution,so, you are correct, most people dont understand it. but, i feel they would understand it over some of the freedom movement material.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
To my knowledge *all* U.S. States in their traffic courts are civil proceedings in nature given a criminal burden of proof. They must find actus rea and mens rea: 1) guitly act and 2) guilty mind [i.e. intent to do it].

If someone drugs you against your will and you crash into a house killing someone: there is no mens rea. Actually the drugger can be held accountable (this is alluded to in principles concerning bartender liability).

If someone plants a gun on you that was used to commit a crime and you were set up: there is neither actus rea nor mens rea.

Might Romans 7 even touch upon the likes of of 'actus rea' and 'mens rea'?

The shadowy figures going around bringing mayhem to the countryside work mainly on appearances of things. They try to make people they target *appear* to be willingly doing evil. They kick people down on their face and kick their cart of apples over and go "See I told you he was clumsy" and then hope their victim is dumb enough to feel guilty for getting shoved face first into the eart. Like someone I know once poignantly said: there is a difference between committing suicide and being thrown into a hole by those who envy you. Heh, even their lies aren't substantial they are just appearance-oriented. Fortunately as kgod alludes: seems there must be 'actus rea' and 'mens rea'. Apparently, they presume both.

[Akira]

Originally Posted by kgod999

this isnt hard....

Right of Travel - Affirmative Defense


U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
"This Constitution...... shall be the supreme Law of the Land"


Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803);
“Anything that is in conflict [with the supreme Law of the Land] is null and void of law”


Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):
"The constitutional right to travel . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "


Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943);
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”


Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962);
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage the right with impunity.”


United States v. Bishop: 412 US 346 (1973):
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent

1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.

Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”


How can exercising a Constitutional liberty (right of travel) be committing an evil task ?


Now... consider this.... (for all you non-custodial parents, out there)

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972);
The right of a parent to raise his children has long been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, "far more precious than property rights."

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905);
He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights."

That's law, not copywrited private statutes and regs (color of law).


(quality posts, not quantity...)

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Points well taken Akira... Good writing.

Jerry

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by Akira

Right of Travel - Affirmative Defense


U.S. Constitution, Article Six, Clause 2:
"This Constitution...... shall be the supreme Law of the Land"


Marbury v. Madison : 5 US 137 (1803);
“Anything that is in conflict [with the supreme Law of the Land] is null and void of law”


Shapiro v. Thompson : 394 US 618 (1969):
"The constitutional right to travel . . . has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757. This constitutional right, which, of course, includes the right of "entering and abiding in any State in the Union," Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 39, is not a mere conditional liberty subject to regulation and control under conventional (394 U.S. 618, 643) due process or equal protection standards. "The right to travel freely from State to State finds constitutional protection that is quite independent of the Fourteenth Amendment." United States v. Guest, supra, at 760, n. 17. As we made clear in Guest, it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all. "


Mudook v. Penn. : 319 US 105 (1943);
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it.”


Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Al.: 373 US 262 (1962);
“If the state does convert your right into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it, you can ignore the license and fee and engage the right with impunity.”


United States v. Bishop: 412 US 346 (1973):
Sets the standard for criminal violation of Willful Intent

1. It must be proven that you are the party.
2. It must be proven that you had the method or opportunity to do the thing.
3. It must be proven that you did this with a Willful Intent.

Willfulness - “An evil motive or intent to avoid a know duty or task under a law, with a moral certainty.”


How can exercising a Constitutional liberty (right of travel) be committing an evil task ?


Now... consider this.... (for all you non-custodial parents, out there)

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972);
The right of a parent to raise his children has long been recognized as a fundamental constitutional right, "far more precious than property rights."

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905);
He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights."

That's law, not copywrited private statutes and regs (color of law).


(quality posts, not quantity...)

For HIS Glory,
Akira

Yes, indeed. Good info.

[joseph sugarman]

Originally Posted by kgod999

criminal statutes say that when u commit a crime you WILLFULLY DID IT OR INTENTIONALLY DID IT. so, lets say you use a right to travel defense per the constitution or whatever case law you prefer it that regards. thats your affirmative defense. that you didnt INTENTIONALLY commit the crime. this isnt hard. the only thing i agree with you on is most people dont take the time to read the constitution,so, you are correct, most people dont understand it. but, i feel they would understand it over some of the freedom movement material.

Mens rea is not an element of most traffic infractions; as a matter of fact mens rea is not an element of most mala prohibida crimes. Therefore willfullness--whether you meant to do it or not-- is not an issue. Therefore it is not available as an affirmative defense.
The right to travel is not per the constitution. The right to travel was recognized by the writers of the Consitution as one of the inalienable rights; so they listed it as one protected by the document--not per the document.